What are advantages and disadvantages to using compression or no compression when creating images using Ghost 2003?  Obviously compression will use less space, but is it as reliable when restoring images?  Is compression slower faster or same as no compression?

I've always used no compression, but most posts I've seen seem to use the fast compression option.  What are differences between fast compression and high compression? 

i've always used 'fast' compression. no probs.

'high' seems to uses way more cpu and takes way more time for a little more space savings.

i discuss compression on step #10 here:

http://ghost.radified.com/ghost_2.htm

Just had the opportunity to restore image created via fast compression, and it worked perfectly.  It also seemed to require about the same amount of time to create fast compression image as it di the uncompressed image.  I think I'll switch to using fast compression instead of using no compression.

Yeah.

You would certainly want to use HIGH compression when backing up to DVD's.  Yes, it's slower but, it will definitely lessen the number of DVD's necessary to back up your drive. ;)

High Compression is also good, if you're writing your Ghost backup image files to another hard drive with limited space available.

It's certainly nice that Ghost does give us those options.  Many other programs that I've tried give you NO such options.

good luck,
Old Casper